So you keep claiming, but actual trials of mincome/BI/whatever haven't shown a significant dropout of labour. Do you have any evidence for this other than your gut feeling?
My question stands: Do you have any evidence for this other than your gut feeling?
BI and UBI has never been tried anywhere in a fully form because it requires everybody on the planet to do it at the same time. The closest we have are economic analogs. For example, resource rich locations that produce wealth at multiples of the labor input. You can study the economics of these places yourself and look at the outcomes. But they basically sum to: people stop working, people collect their money, labor supply needs to be imported from outside the local economy, the people who've stopped working don't exactly spend this new free-time self-actualizing themselves into discovering cures for cancer or unifying the fundamental forces of the universe.
If you want evidence, I suggest you open a high-school level history book and start on page 1. If you aren't aware of these cases on your own, but willing to promote nonsense like UBI, you're just being willfully ignorant of history and basic economics.
No amount of handwaivery and ignoring poor outcomes based on this or that technicality or goal post move will make cause and effect bend towards making these schemes work.
So here's your test: find somebody who's working poor, offer to put them up in your house and feed and clothe them no strings attached. How long before they self-actualize into a high-paid white-collar degree? Repeat this experiment 10,000 times. How many people, given this options, would rather just sit at home all day and surf the internet/watch TV/gossip vs. going out and challenging themselves into a better life?
I don't have to answer this, BI advocates do. And they need to present the outcome of this experiment as a real economic model that accurately predicts labor participation and real-world situations. This has never been done and anything outside of this is hand waivy nonsense built on fairy dreams.
I have. And the Namibian ones. And the Indian ones. None of them saw a significant dropoff in labour.
> For example, resource rich locations that produce wealth at multiples of the labor input. You can study the economics of these places yourself and look at the outcomes. But they basically sum to: people stop working, people collect their money, labor supply needs to be imported from outside the local economy
Like Norway, you mean?
> If you want evidence, I suggest you open a high-school level history book and start on page 1.
How will a history book help me if "BI and UBI has never been tried anywhere in a fully form"?
> And they need to present the outcome of this experiment as a real economic model that accurately predicts labor participation and real-world situations.
These were "real-world" situations. They actually occurred in the real world. That's generally considered more "real-world" than economic models are.
I think I'll stop here. I'm starting to get too amused with this conversation.
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Not trying to nitpick labels, just want to be clear as to the referents.
I think the following links has more details on India, but I've not read through it as it's late on Christmas Eve for me and I'm worried about collapsing the Santa wave-function so I won't get any presents!
http://isa-global-dialogue.net/indias-great-experiment-the-t...
http://www.demos.org/blog/1/19/14/cherokee-tribes-basic-inco...
"Children who were moved out of poverty by the UBI saw their behavioral problems decline by 40 percent. Minor crimes declined. On-time high school graduation rates increased. Children who started receiving the UBI earlier in life had better mental health in early adulthood than those who started receiving it later in life. In particular, they were 33% less likely to develop substance abuse or psychiatric problems."
I will have a read over the link you provided when I have more time. Thanks for letting me know about it.
There's a delay before you can reply, and I think it might grow with depth...
"Sorry I haven't done very well with your comments; it's not been through deliberate ignorance, just lack of time."
No worries.
"I hadn't been previously aware of UBI in Native American tribes and had thought you were referring to social problems and welfare."
Gotcha.
"I will have a read over the link you provided when I have more time. Thanks for letting me know about it."
Of course! And I fully understand you having better things to do right now - Merry Christmas :)
What Mincome did show was negligible effects in almost all other areas, it neither showed significant increases or decreases in almost any measurable area. The reason Mincome was dropped as a program was that it was expensive and virtually worthless. It wasn't worth doing because it doesn't provide any positive benefits.
Please please please, if you do anything, don't cherry pick favorable studies and read all of them with critical thinking. Read the unfavorable ones and read the favorable ones and figure out what they aren't saying.
Have a great Christmas and New Year as well!
"Mothers spent more time rearing newborns, and the educational impacts are regarded as a success. Students in these families showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. There was also an increase in adults continuing education."
If you know better, please fix the article.
It's mostly irrelevant since Mincome is not the model any present xBI scheme is working off of.
Exactly. Look at the Gulf states like Kuwait, Qatar, etc. The locals don't do much work; all of the real work is done by expats.